Steiner v. Markel
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Justice GREENSPAN.
We consider whether the Superior Court may declare, sua sponte, that a cause of action described in a complaint as a claim for “professional malpractice” is actually a claim for breach of contract for purposes of determining which statute of limitation applies. Appellants, John F. Markel, Esquire, and Nikolaus & Hohenadel, LLP (collectively referred to as the “Attorneys”), appeal from the Superior Court’s order reversing the trial court’s decision in the Attorneys’ favor of a motion for judgment on the pleadings. We reverse the Superior Court and reinstate the trial…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Wiegand v. WiegandSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- Kuisis v. Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
- Estate of Swift Ex Rel. Swift v. Northeastern Hospital of PhiladelphiaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
- Kituskie v. CorbmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
- Grossman v. BarkeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by98 opinions
- Commonwealth v. Mason, L., ApltSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
- Commonwealth v. SherwoodSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
- Commonwealth v. ColavitaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
- Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Wolfe, M.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
- Chepkevich v. Hidden Valley Resort, L.P.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
93 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.